Lack of Wake Vortex at WTC = No Planes?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


You still didn't give your professional opinion as to what caused the flashes.


I really can't say. I honestly don't remember seeing them as anything else than 'added' in, so I discounted them. NOW, based on what you've said, when I watch again I'll remain neutral.

This has probably been suggested already, and I don't have the angles and directions clear in my head, without looking it all up, but is there any possibliity they were reflections? Of any kind? Nine o'clock in the morning, off the top of my head, just guessing here. Different angles, different viewpoints, different size flashes/reflections?

I remember once when my R/C model airplane was a little too far away, and as I was turning it back toward me, I thought "I might be too close to that building" when a split-second later I saw the shadow...and a split-split-second later the shadow and the model merged.....D'Oh!!!! (True story. I was 15.) The flashes remind me of that, in a way.



Are you saying that the flashes are from the radar equipment in the nose?


No. And I don't think your theory of an explosive in just the nose accounts for the rest of the penetration seen as the remainder of the airplane entered, and dislodged the facade.




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
To me the most plausible explanation for the flash would be:

CREW OXYGEN BOTTLE IN
RIGHT SIDE, E & E
COMPARTMENT

shown here in the Boeing:
AIRPLANE RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING INFORMATION Document.

Stabalized video showing flash:



The most dangerous thing on Earth is OXYGEN

[edit on 14-8-2009 by waypastvne]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Thank you for the info. The location of the crew oxygen bottle is in nearly the exact location of the flash on the second plane and it is a likely explanation. Never thought of that. Very good info.


[edit on 14-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Unfortunately I am at work right now and can't give the above linked video the "full monty" as it were but I wanted to ask a question. What is the spark above the right wing between seconds 3 and 4 of the video?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Also note the wing condensation cloud that forms above wing on impact.

Wing cloud

Wing cloud



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
This video is such a joke. At the two second mark you can see the upright pole on the roof of the building in the backround in front of the left wing of the airplane.

Watch it carefully on full screen folks. This stuff wasn't done by the folks at Disney or Dreamworks.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
That building is south of the WTC UA175 flew over it.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


So you are a no-planer after all.

I just downloaded the video and slowed it down in VLC media player. What you're seeing is the result of compression and frame-rate compensation. Due to the type of compression, the frame-rates between the original and the compressed version are not the same and makes the building appear on top of the plane's wing. I would lay money that the original, uncompressed video does not have this problem. If you want to prove that it was a joke, then obtain the original.

Nice try though.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

I am not a no planer. I don't know how many times I have to say it.

The building with the pole on top of it is in the foreground and that is why it appears in front of the plane's wing as it flies over. Fine. I apologize. I made a mistake. I yield on that point. You have to know that yielding on a point and admitting a mistake are not often done in these forums.

What about the wing on the left and the horizontal stabilizer on the left. What is making them disappear as the plane approaches the building while the wing and stabilizer on the right do not? That strikes me as odd. I haven't heard an explanation of that. Do you have one?

P.S.: I am not a no planer. I should use that as my signature. lol.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Nobody in the 9/11 truth movement has "enhanced" or otherwise altered any video.



Lie.

Wacko chick Shafquat is being sued for altering some of the video in her movie.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The building with the pole on top of it is in the foreground and that is why it appears in front of the plane's wing as it flies over.


Analyzing video is really not what I am all about. I think the guys/girls/cyborgs who made September Clues maintain that although the building we are talking about is actually in the foreground, when you look carefully at it the plane's wing can be seen to partially overlap the building. This might be where the compression and frame rate issues you are talking about come into play. One has to be a video expert to really talk intelligently about this stuff and I am no video expert.

Personally, I think the September Clues people are right about some of the things they point out. But I am no expert in these matters. Funny video, of course, doesn't necessarily mean no planes.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Lie.
Wacko chick Shafquat is being sued for altering some of the video in her movie.

Um, you seem to be the dishonest one. She did not alter video, she altered audio. Nice try.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Um, you seem to be the dishonest one. She did not alter video, she altered audio. Nice try.



The purpose of that point in the video was to prove the existence of explosives. Are you defending her actions?

But if you want to split hairs like that, then I can say that any truther video that has had arrows, or text inserted, has been altered. Care to go down that road?

Also, you "challenged" me to a debate about "truthers making stuff up". Didn't you just lose that debate by agreeing that she altered the audio?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The purpose of that point in the video was to prove the existence of explosives. Are you defending her actions?

Quite the opposite. The explosions were already there in the original video. Only she can answer as to why she altered the audio.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Also, you "challenged" me to a debate about "truthers making stuff up". Didn't you just lose that debate by agreeing that she altered the audio?

Enhancing audio or adding auido effects is not "making stuff up". The explosions were already there in the original as corroborated by first responders and by-standers.

She's simply a dumb-asphalt for changing the audio, but it still doesn't change the facts.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

...adding auido effects is not "making stuff up". The explosions were already there in the original as corroborated by first responders and by-standers.



Sure it is. Adding something that isn't there would be making stuff up.

How do you know for certain that the parts she added were in time synch with the first responders quotes?

If you don't then you must concede that she made stuff up.

Nice snip too. Why don't you answer? If you want to split hairs and say that altering audio isn't altering the video as a whole, then why isn't adding arrows and text to videos also altering? They have the same consistent standards.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Bonez, one minute you believe the OS, the next you don't? Are you one of those types that switch sides to steer the direction of the thread?

Waypastvne, the flashes occur before impacts, this has been analysed by many, and they are nothing to do with anything inside the plane. Just thought I'd clarify that. Go analyse it properly, guess work theories like yours are not remotely accurate.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
[
No where in the truth movement is NPT accepted



Says who? It's discussed on may forums without issues, all theories are welcome. It's only here it's considered a hoax and it should be in the 9/11 forum like all the other conspiracies. Putting the no plane theory in a hoax section is saying all the other 9/11 conspiracy theories are real.

Please do link to some places where NPT is not accepted?

BTW, you do realise that the term 'truth movement' is a fiction started by perp disinfo sites?

You seem so sure on your 9/11 knowledge but you don't even know that the 9/11 truth movement is actually a hoax by the perps!

People are looking for the real truth but they sure arent part of some ficticious 'truth movement'!!




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
How do you explain the fact the Commercial 747s can not fly at 500 mph at the altitude theses plane where at? And please don't revert to the childish act of labeling me as this or that. I am neither saying there were or there were not planes. Stick to answering the question.
edit on 9-6-2012 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Waypastvne, the flashes occur before impacts, this has been analysed by many,


Click link below.

www.911conspiracy.tv...

Type 16 into the "go to frame" box.

Click the "go" button.

Wait for page to load.

Click the "next" button

Wait for page to load.

Click the "previous" button.

Click the "next" button

Click the "previous" button

Repeat as necessary.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join